Why Do White Christians and Black Christians Have Different Voting Patterns

anoymous51

Member
Aug 6, 2021
12
11
54
Wills Point
✟12,734.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Why Do White Christians and Black Christians Have Different Voting Patterns


The most important reason why black Christians and white Christians vote for the opposite parties in this country is because of the totally different experiences they have from one another. African Americans have always had to rely on the government guarantee their equal rights. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued as an executive order by President Lincoln freeing the slaves. During Reconstruction, the Fourteenth Amendment was signed by congress in 1968 to promise equal rights under the law for freed slaves. Also during this period, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed by congress overriding a presidential veto. The right to vote was also given by to freed slaves. After the Reconstruction Era(1863-1877), these laws were either overturned, ignored and replaced by segregation/sharecropping. It would be a century later when these issues were addressed again. During the Civil Rights Era of the '50s and '60s, the Supreme Court passed Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 which paved the way for the end of Jim Crow. In 1964 President Johnson signed the civil rights act of the same year. A year later congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Where as in the 19th century, many of the white civil rights activist where former Christian abolitionist, the ones in the 1960's where liberal, left leaning, secular humanists. The NAACP was partially founded by white Socialist. Of course, the black church during both centuries where at the forefront for equal rights. As a result of this history, black politicians, regardless of religious affiliation have adopted a progressive egalitarian ideology which includes other perceived oppressed groups such as other minorities, women, gays, etc. This is the reason why black Christians vote for the pro-choice and pro-gay liberal Democrat every voting cycle whether it be state, federal, congressional, and presidential elections. The same candidate that protects gay rights also protects their rights as well.

White Christians on the other hand have always distrusted the government. One of the reasons The Declaration of Independence(1776) from England was drafted was because the mother country was approaching on their civil liberties. Nearly a century later, the Southern states declared their own independence from the union because the free states limited the right to have slaves. They accused them of violating their States Rights. This term was also used during the Civil Rights era by segregationist to describe politicians and black civil rights leaders who were for integration. From that era till today, most white conservatives(including Christians) oppose further civil rights bills because they not just only include minorities but also abortion and LGBTQ rights. Conservative white Christians look at this as interfering with their religious liberties. Even though the more economically disadvantaged whites could benefit from the social programs that progressives offer, they put faith, race, and culture over economics. In fact, many of them support voter suppression and gerrymandering. Blacks(christian and non-Christian), of course, put economics and social justice over religion.

So, you can see where white Christians and Black Christians would clash politically(think Pat Robertson vs Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton vs Mike Huckabee).

But, before you criticize Black Christians for voting for secular politicians instead of Religious Right candidates, I'm going to use a metaphor. Imagine you suffer from a migraine headache or toothache, two of the most excruciatingly painful conditions. You go to a doctor who is a Christian and well qualified to give you medicine but refuses. The religious doctor thinks that you are inferior and do not deserve any medication. On the next block , there is another doctor who is not only a secular, non Christian but also an atheist. That doctor gives you medicine. Which doctor would you go to? It's a similar dynamic between black Christians and white Christians. During the 1950s and 1960s, especially in the South, many white politicians who had evangelical Christian leanings(conservative Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats) opposed civil rights legislation while secular politicians in the North(liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans) championed such legislation.

And besides, Donald Trump is not a Christians; but, most white evangelicals support him because of his position on issues that affect them.

So. you can see where the divide comes from.
 

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Site Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,509
7,068
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟961,695.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The conservative poor (regardless of color) tends to vote right of center because
  1. Fetal Rights (including Black Fetal Rights) &
  2. the Far Right tends to "throw us under the bus."
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,365
10,608
Georgia
✟912,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The most important reason why black Christians and white Christians vote for the opposite parties in this country is because of the totally different experiences they have from one another.

On this web site we find that

What the 2020 electorate looks like by party, race and ethnicity, age, education and religion

60% of Democrat votes are from white Americans
80% of Republican votes are from white Americans

So in both parties over 50% of their votes are from white Americans.

The most important reason why black Christians and white Christians vote for the opposite parties in this country is because of the totally different experiences they have from one another. African Americans have always had to rely on the government guarantee their equal rights. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued as an executive order by President Lincoln freeing the slaves.

1. President Lincoln was a Republican and a Christian
2. Slave owners in the South were democrats.

Democrats in the South and in congress opposed Lincoln's efforts.

During Reconstruction, the Fourteenth Amendment was signed by congress in 1968 to promise equal rights under the law for freed slaves. Also during this period, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed by congress overriding a presidential veto. The right to vote was also given by to freed slaves. After the Reconstruction Era(1863-1877), these laws were either overturned, ignored and replaced by segregation/sharecropping.

"Jim Crow" laws in the South were instituted by democrats in the South to suppress black Americans. Those laws "existed for about 100 years, from the post-Civil War era until 1968" and were the work of democrats in the south with influence in congress and in southern state legislatures.

Republicans opposed it.


From that era till today, most white conservatives(including Christians) oppose further civil rights bills because they not just only include minorities but also abortion and LGBTQ rights. Conservative white Christians look at this as interfering with their religious liberties. .

I don't know of any Christian group today that claims to oppose a politician or a law simply because that person or law affirms the right of a given racial group to vote or to enjoy civil rights. Aside from democrats in the old south prior to the 1960's - I think that sort of thing is totally absent from main christian groups today.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,320
16,156
Flyoverland
✟1,238,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Why Do White Christians and Black Christians Have Different Voting Patterns


The most important reason why black Christians and white Christians vote for the opposite parties in this country is because of the totally different experiences they have from one another. African Americans have always had to rely on the government guarantee their equal rights. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued as an executive order by President Lincoln freeing the slaves. During Reconstruction, the Fourteenth Amendment was signed by congress in 1968 to promise equal rights under the law for freed slaves. Also during this period, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed by congress overriding a presidential veto. The right to vote was also given by to freed slaves. After the Reconstruction Era(1863-1877), these laws were either overturned, ignored and replaced by segregation/sharecropping. It would be a century later when these issues were addressed again. During the Civil Rights Era of the '50s and '60s, the Supreme Court passed Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 which paved the way for the end of Jim Crow. In 1964 President Johnson signed the civil rights act of the same year. A year later congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Where as in the 19th century, many of the white civil rights activist where former Christian abolitionist, the ones in the 1960's where liberal, left leaning, secular humanists. The NAACP was partially founded by white Socialist. Of course, the black church during both centuries where at the forefront for equal rights. As a result of this history, black politicians, regardless of religious affiliation have adopted a progressive egalitarian ideology which includes other perceived oppressed groups such as other minorities, women, gays, etc. This is the reason why black Christians vote for the pro-choice and pro-gay liberal Democrat every voting cycle whether it be state, federal, congressional, and presidential elections. The same candidate that protects gay rights also protects their rights as well.

White Christians on the other hand have always distrusted the government. One of the reasons The Declaration of Independence(1776) from England was drafted was because the mother country was approaching on their civil liberties. Nearly a century later, the Southern states declared their own independence from the union because the free states limited the right to have slaves. They accused them of violating their States Rights. This term was also used during the Civil Rights era by segregationist to describe politicians and black civil rights leaders who were for integration. From that era till today, most white conservatives(including Christians) oppose further civil rights bills because they not just only include minorities but also abortion and LGBTQ rights. Conservative white Christians look at this as interfering with their religious liberties. Even though the more economically disadvantaged whites could benefit from the social programs that progressives offer, they put faith, race, and culture over economics. In fact, many of them support voter suppression and gerrymandering. Blacks(christian and non-Christian), of course, put economics and social justice over religion.

So, you can see where white Christians and Black Christians would clash politically(think Pat Robertson vs Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton vs Mike Huckabee).

But, before you criticize Black Christians for voting for secular politicians instead of Religious Right candidates, I'm going to use a metaphor. Imagine you suffer from a migraine headache or toothache, two of the most excruciatingly painful conditions. You go to a doctor who is a Christian and well qualified to give you medicine but refuses. The religious doctor thinks that you are inferior and do not deserve any medication. On the next block , there is another doctor who is not only a secular, non Christian but also an atheist. That doctor gives you medicine. Which doctor would you go to? It's a similar dynamic between black Christians and white Christians. During the 1950s and 1960s, especially in the South, many white politicians who had evangelical Christian leanings(conservative Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats) opposed civil rights legislation while secular politicians in the North(liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans) championed such legislation.

And besides, Donald Trump is not a Christians; but, most white evangelicals support him because of his position on issues that affect them.

So. you can see where the divide comes from.
Sort of.

Blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican up until the 1960's. They saw the Democrats as the party of slavery, which they were. Catholics voted overwhelmingly Democrat up until about 2000.

I would argue that it was Hubert Humphrey who worked hard to change the image of the Democrats from the pro-slave party to the party which would welcome Blacks. Humphrey expanded the idea of the Democratic Party as the party of the little guy, something which had been worked out by Catholics in New York and Philadelphia and Chicago and Boston and Minneapolis earlier in the last century. Eventually the Democrats stopped being the pro-slavery party of the South. It became the party of 'here comes everybody. So Catholics remained, Blacks joined, and the Dixiecrats got uncomfortable.

So not all White Christians were Republican and many or most Black Christians were Republican. Until things changed. And things have changed again. Many Catholics are uncomfortable with the abortion advocacy that took over in the 1980's. So much so that a lot of formerly Democratic party Catholics now identify as Republicans and more who still consider themselves Democrats will vote for a Republican. I think Black Christians feel the same tug. Black Christians have a revulsion towards abortion, about Margaret Sanger's racism that is very much alive with Planned Parenthood. They don't like how PP tried to steer the Black churches towards abortion advocacy. Both Catholics and Blacks are uncomfortable now with the Republicans, but their discomfort with the Democrats grows. And it's not just abortion. It's also the sexual agenda that is discomforting.

Where will it end? I think will end in a mess. As most politics does. We have more polarization than at any time since the civil war. People feel the need to move toward one pole or the other, and the middle ground seems to be the impossible place. Political loyalties expand, and are going to be divisive for Catholic Christians and for Black Christians. Neither will be monolithic in the future. It isn't a Black or White thing, because Blacks moved and are moving politically. And because White Catholics were not members of an entitled class, being seen themselves often as members of an inferior race to the WASPS.

I think it's time we put faith over economics and race. The social justice will then work itself out better than any race based or economics based politics.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
On this web site we find that

What the 2020 electorate looks like by party, race and ethnicity, age, education and religion

60% of Democrat votes are from white Americans
80% of Republican votes are from white Americans

So in both parties over 50% of their votes are from white Americans.



1. President Lincoln was a Republican and a Christian
2. Slave owners in the South were democrats.

Democrats in the South and in congress opposed Lincoln's efforts.



"Jim Crow" laws in the South were instituted by democrats in the South to suppress black Americans. Those laws "existed for about 100 years, from the post-Civil War era until 1968" and were the work of democrats in the south with influence in congress and in southern state legislatures.

Republicans opposed it.

Please also realize that the Lincoln and the Republican party of the time were the liberal party and Democrats were the conservative party.

Historically civil rights have been supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives regardless of politicla parties.


I don't know of any Christian group today that claims to oppose a politician or a law simply because that person or law affirms the right of a given racial group to vote or to enjoy civil rights. Aside from democrats in the old south prior to the 1960's - I think that sort of thing is totally absent from main christian groups today.
In regards to the opposing of civil rights conservatives are just targeting differnt minorities
 
  • Agree
Reactions: xser88
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,365
10,608
Georgia
✟912,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Please also realize that the Lincoln and the Republican party of the time were the liberal party and Democrats were the conservative party.

They were Christian and a number of anti-slavery Christian denominations joined them -- and were extremely conservative in terms of doctrine and practice.

Historically civil rights have been supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives regardless of politicla parties.

the terms "Liberal" and "conservative" have changed meaning since the 1800's. In the 1800's "Liberal" used to be generous and kind to others - today it means cancel culture , abortion, LGBT, redefinition of gender etc. None of which the Republicans of the 1800's would have tolerated.


In regards to the opposing of civil rights conservatives are just targeting differnt minorities

Minority is a "relative term" that just means one group smaller than another. Using such a non-specific term means that prostitutes and pedophiles are "minorities".

I was very specific when I said "racial groups" --

IN the 1800's Republicans were not arguing in favor of minority views on pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, incest, declaring that the term 'woman' is "undefined" etc... they were arguing for human rights for all races.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,365
10,608
Georgia
✟912,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Sort of.
Blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican up until the 1960's. They saw the Democrats as the party of slavery, which they were. Catholics voted overwhelmingly Democrat up until about 2000.

True. Black thought leaders today like Thomas Sowell - Wikipedia, Candice Owen and other minority figures like Dinesh D'Souza point out that President Johnson basically created a "plantation" out of government welfare and tried to bribe a certain demographic in America to stay on it -- via welfare checks.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,320
16,156
Flyoverland
✟1,238,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
True. Black thought leaders today like Thomas Sowell - Wikipedia, Candice Owen and other minority figures like Dinesh D'Souza point out that President Johnson basically created a "plantation" out of government welfare and tried to bribe a certain demographic in America to stay on it -- via welfare checks.
That and inadvertently (I hope it was inadvertent) they destroyed the Black family, leading to generations now of fatherless children. Democratic Party policy has not been friendly to Black people. Eat the poor attitudes of some Republicans isn't great either. Time for a different party. One that is pro-family.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
They were Christian and a number of anti-slavery Christian denominations joined them -- and were extremely conservative in terms of doctrine and practice.



the terms "Liberal" and "conservative" have changed meaning since the 1800's. In the 1800's "Liberal" used to be generous and kind to others - today it means cancel culture , abortion, LGBT, redefinition of gender etc. None of which the Republicans of the 1800's would have tolerated.




Minority is a "relative term" that just means one group smaller than another. Using such a non-specific term means that prostitutes and pedophiles are "minorities".

I was very specific when I said "racial groups" --

IN the 1800's Republicans were not arguing in favor of minority views on pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, incest, declaring that the term 'woman' is "undefined" etc... they were arguing for human rights for all races.
Minority is not a relative term is has a very specific meaning and in the context used here there is no way to mistake that meaning
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
The Difference One Racist Made: Margaret Sanger's World

So then Margaret Sanger - a well known racist and founder of abortion clinics in America --

“Discrimination is a worldwide thing. It has to be opposed everywhere. That is why I feel the Negro’s plight here is linked with that of the oppressed around the globe. The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes.” Margaret Sanger Chichgo Defender 9/2/1945

“What hangs over the South is that the Negro has been in servitude. The white southerner is slow to forget this. His attitude is the archaic in this age. Supremacist thinking belongs in the museum.” Margaret Sanger
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,365
10,608
Georgia
✟912,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
“Discrimination is a worldwide thing. It has to be opposed everywhere. That is why I feel the Negro’s plight here is linked with that of the oppressed around the globe. The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes.” Margaret Sanger Chichgo Defender 9/2/1945

“What hangs over the South is that the Negro has been in servitude. The white southerner is slow to forget this. His attitude is the archaic in this age. Supremacist thinking belongs in the museum.” Margaret Sanger

Yet Sanger argues for killing black babies as "the solution"

21 Quotes by Margaret Sanger that Will Probably Make You Sick


3. "We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."
-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2
https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/...

4. “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”
-- Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 366

6. “The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children..."
-- Sanger, Margaret. Woman and the New Race (1920). Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families. http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5...

12. "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 4, March 27, 1934.

15. "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
-- Sanger, Margaret. “My Way to Peace,” Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

16. "... these two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."
-- Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

18. "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement."
-- Margaret Sanger, "The Pope's Position on Birth Control," Jan. 27, 1932.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Yet Sanger argues for killing black babies as "the solution"

21 Quotes by Margaret Sanger that Will Probably Make You Sick
well these quote make me sick because they are just lies.
3. "We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."
-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2
https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/...


What she really said: "“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs."
And it is of note that those opposed to Sanger were trying to claim that her intendt was to exterminate black people.

4. “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”
-- Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 366
Sanger spoke at a Silver Lake, N.J., Klan women's meeting in 1926 because she was invited and she had often said she woudl never turn down an invitaton no matter who it was from.. (she changed that after speaking to the klan refusing to ever do so again for any reason.)

What she actually said: "“Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."



6. “The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children..."
-- Sanger, Margaret. Woman and the New Race (1920). Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families. http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5...
where she goes on to talk about those living in poverty who are unable to adequate feed, clothe and educate their children leading to rising child mortality rates.

"Everywhere we look, we see poverty and large families going hand in hand. We see hordes of children whose parents cannot feed, clothe, or educate even one half of the number born to them. We see sick, harassed, broken mothers whose health and nerves cannot bear the strain of further child-bearing. We see fathers growing despondent and desperate, because their labor cannot bring the necessary wage to keep their growing families." Margaret Sanger

12. "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 4, March 27, 1934.
I can't find the actual article but i will bet anything this isn't what she said at all.

15. "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
-- Sanger, Margaret. “My Way to Peace,” Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
she was actually talking about immigration laws of the United states which said these things.

16. "... these two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."
-- Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
According to Snopes this mangaling of Sanger came from
the 1992 book American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others, author John George writes that this quote was “evidently concocted in the late 1980s for the purpose of trying to make the early birth control advocate seem a racist and anti-Semite” and that “this fabrication has been kept in circulation by antiabortion and anti-birth control groups.” Snopes

18. "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement."
-- Margaret Sanger, "The Pope's Position on Birth Control," Jan. 27, 1932.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

what she actually said...
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,319
24,237
Baltimore
✟558,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
True. Black thought leaders today like Thomas Sowell - Wikipedia, Candice Owen and other minority figures like Dinesh D'Souza point out that President Johnson basically created a "plantation" out of government welfare and tried to bribe a certain demographic in America to stay on it -- via welfare checks.

Candice Owen, a "black thought leader"? lol Candice Owen is an opportunistic hack who says whatever makes her money. Sowell is leagues better, but still a mostly-unremarkable economist who shifted to pop sociology because it sold more books. Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted felon who's been roundly criticized by both sides as something of a fraud.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: xser88
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,320
16,156
Flyoverland
✟1,238,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
What she actually said when? April 7, 2009? She died in 1966. Or did she somehow live to author a piece in 2009? The 2009 article nowhere indicates that it was any sort of reprint.

From the article you referenced: "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement. I hope to make this clear by analyzing the statements of Pope Piux XI in his encyclical letter “Of Chaste Marriage,” which was issued about a year ago."

About a year ago, in this case was December 31st, 1930. Sanger's article was from 1932, not the apparent 2009 of the article you linked to. And it does speak of 'race improvement', a polite way of saying race based eugenics.
 
Upvote 0